Isn’t AGP also what every woman experiences when they get dressed up & feel good about themselves?

[Theboredpanda]

I have no agenda here. I’ve always just been interested in exploring other perspectives of debates…although I’m sure this particular thought will get flamed on here and end up very one-sided indeed 🤣
I don’t believe every trans woman has AGP, but I believe a significant proportion do. And I’ve always considered that proportion to be creepy, I feel anger at the fact these men get to walk around, at least in some circles, socially accepted as women, just so they can satisfy a sexual fetish. However, I was thinking about how I feel as a woman who’s comfortable and happy about being a woman when I get dressed up in my favourite sexy outfit and put on some makeup. It makes me feel sexy. Not sexually aroused but I do feel sexy. Is that vastly different to what a trans woman feels like when they get dressed up and look (at least in their eyes) like a woman? Could it be that it’s either not AGP and we all feel sexy when we know we look good as the gender we are or want to be…or everyone’s a bit AGP when they think they look sexy because they therefore feel sexy? Or is this a totally unoriginal thought that’s already been troped out by TRAs and actually there is a huge difference??

Oh dear, you seem to be ignorant of women’s social history.

😁

We don’t want men in trousers or men in dresses in female private spaces. No one is differentiating between them - none of them should be there.

"Why does this remind me of Felix telling women they can't do this, that and the other, mustn't speculate, etc."

Both men and women complain about this, not just women.

"Women can absolutely accuse men who are violating their boundaries in their single sex space, without consent, as being predators."

You can, but you're both factually and morally wrong to do so. Just as people could accuse you of being a baby killer for getting an abortion. You might not appreciate that, but people can say it. You don't seem to understand what a predator is. If a man is in the women's toilets, who has no intention of harming anyone, does their business and leaves, they are, factually, not a predator or a criminal. A predator has to have predatory intent and action. You can be uncomfortable with whatever you want, but it doesn't make you're accusations true.

Using the word consent also comes off as manipulative. Since people being in a public place isn't actually a violation of anyone's personal rights. And if this is just about comfort and dignity, and not just about safety, then why is it okay for women to use the men's room? Men are even more exposed than women in there, because they have urinals, not just cubicles. It's all the more easy for men to be spied on when they urinate. And that does happen.

I wasn't talking about private spaces. I was talking about people saying men in dresses should be treated as a unique threat in general and that they aren't allowed around children. That's authoritarian and pushing gender norms.

You can, but you're both factually and morally wrong to do so.

Using the word consent also comes off as manipulative.

Surely your next line should be I'm here all week?

I wasn;t talking about toilets.

If they broke the law and went into the women's they would have to go into the cubicles to pee. So they keep the law and go into the cubicles in the men's.

'Using the word consent also comes off as manipulative'

Women who point out male abuse are often accused of being manupulative.

I don;t think so, in the case of the ones that make an effort to pass.

The law states that single sex spaces are for people of that sex, not that gender. It's been confirmed by the Supreme Court, so surely it's simple. A biological male should not be in a single sex space designated for women so no one has to decide whether or not they're a potential predator.

What we do have to decide is whether we can trust a system where the highest court in the land can be ignored because a tiny group of people don't like what they've said.

Imagine, if you can, how you'd have reacted if the judgement when the other way and people continued to block men who think they're women from using single sex facilties? Would you have talked about 'kindness' then? Come to that, how many transgender activists show 'kindness' to those they don't agree with.

Would you like to give us the number of additional female people harmed, by either not having female single sex toilets or being sexually abused in female single sex toilet by a male who has entered under the basis that they are entitled to enter because they have the belief that they are no longer male, that you will find acceptable before you think female people can have single sex toilets supported by policy and law where female people want them?

A male person might cause harm to female people in many ways when they enter the female single sex toilet, including quite a few that are a crime.

Limiting safeguarding decisions to be only based on physical attack is very poor safeguarding.

I am horrified that the suggestion that everyone should be their 'authentic selves' at all times. Some authentic selves are not good at all.

Civilised adulthood involves learning self restraint.

A male person will always be a male person. It is irrelevant how much effort they make to resemble a female person.

Single sex provisions are based on sex not on gender identity.

Oh, so now dresses are important?

But only if you ignore those manipulative women's consent, amirite?

Men entering the women's room isn't abuse. Abuse is abuse. Abuse is requires intent and action. There's no point in repeating it much more to wilfully ignorant people, but if a man and woman are in the same room, including a toilet, and he doesn't commit a crime, he's not an abuser.

If he breaks the law in doing so, then yes, he abuses the law.

Its always the nasty manipulative ones saying "no" to men.

Private female only spaces is how I would refer to toilets set aside for the use of female people.

They are there to give women PRIVACY away from men when dealing with PRIVATE bodily functions.

We don’t want fucking men in there. We want privacy, dignity and safety. Women saying “no” means no.

I don’t know why you are so bloody enthusiastic about ignoring women saying “no”.

Women saying “no” is not authoritarian; is that just some sort of desperate attempt at smearing people with a term you plainly don’t understand.

He is committing a crime by entering.

I don’t know why you are so bloody enthusiastic about ignoring women saying “no”.

So you want someone like this in the women's toilets? That's someone who's biologically female. I guess any man could walk in and claim they're biologically female, and you wouldn't know.

So, women who have abortion where it's illegal are also criminals, and should be treated as such?

We've seen a lot of men on here try and justify their, let's call it, desires, but I don't think I've actually seen any who claim women's and girl's consent is manipulative.

I mean, there's operation let them speak, and there's operation let me just throw every single trans person under the bus with a damn good kicking just to make sure they go far enough.

If a man is in the women's toilets, who has no intention of harming anyone, does their business and leaves, they are, factually, not a predator or a criminal

What on earth has possessed this apparently nice chap who has no intention of harming anyone to use a space he is not entitled to use?

What was Mr Niceguy thinking? He is in a space clearly designated for women, so he is at the very least being antisocial and transgressive by just being there, instead of in the space with the word 'men' written on the door.
Did he not see the word 'women' written on the door? What other explanation could there be?